1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Before the partition of the Subcontinent the land in dispute measuring 47 acres 1 kanal and 16 marlas situated in Mouza Jungle Khan Muhammad Wala, Tehsil and District Multan was owned by the Provincial Government (the petitioner). This was put to auction by the Government on 24-5-1946 and was purchased by Pujara Ram and Roshan Das for a consideration of Rs.47,462 being the highest bidder out of which they admittedly paid Rs.35,596.50 before migrating to India on the eve of partition. According to the petitioner, there was a default in the payment of the balance consideration amount and therefore the auction was cancelled.
2. Subsequently, the land was resumed and allotted to one Mst. Hafeezan Khanum under the Well Sinking Scheme. It may be pertinent to mention here that the said property was treated to be an evacuee property and after being allotted temporarily to tenant by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, it was transferred against the claim of Shadi son of Barkat, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents vide order dated 2-6-1966 and they were also issued RL-II.
3. Subsequently, a dispute arose between Mst. Hafeezan Khanum and the allottee which was ultimately decided against the respondents by the petitioner revenue authorities vide order dated 3-5-1994 on the score that the land in dispute was owned by the petitioner and could not be transferred to the respondents as an evacuee property. These orders were challenged by the respondents before the learned High Court in writ petition which has been accepted vide impugned judgment dated 29-1-2013. The orders of the revenue/settlement authority were set aside and it has been affirmed that the respondents are the allottees of evacuee property and thus the owner thereof since the date/time of their allotment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as Pujara Ram and Roshan Das had failed to pay the balance consideration, therefore, the land was resumed as per the terms and conditions of auction. However, when queried, neither the terms and conditions pertaining to auction of government land in relevant period nor any resumption order of the land in dispute has been placed on the record. Except for the bald allegation by the petitioner there is no material to show if the auction purchaser had defaulted in the payment of any balance consideration or that the revenue authorities took any action to confront or penalize the same. Anyhow, entries in the revenue record show set of the land in dispute by the rehabilitation authorities prior to 1957 who treated the property as an evacuee property and in 1966 transferred it in favour of predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. It is a settled principle of la that where a property is rightly or wrongly treated to be an evacuee property, such treatment of the property, can only be assailed through proceedings before the appropriate forum. In this case, the relevant law is the evacuee law and the competent forum created by such law namely, is the Custodian or his successor the Notified Officer. Reference is made to Azizuddin v. Muhammad Ismail (1985 SCMR 666). Reference can be made to the judgment dated 1-10-2014 of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No.514/2008 titled "Nasir Fahimuddin and others v. Charles Philips Mills son of Patrick Mills, resident of 4/2-A, Habib Ullah Road, Lahore and others"; besides the law laid down in Muhammad Din and 8 others v. Province of the Punjab through Collector and others (PLD 2003 Lah. 441), the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "From the above, it stands settled that when there is a question about the evacuee nature and treatment of a property as such, the civil courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. In the instant case, not only that the property was treated as an evacuee property, but, the same had also been transferred and permanently settled in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Noor Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.3, and Nazim-ud-Din. The Civil Courts in the suit, filed by the respondents, seeking declaration of their title on the basis of PTD, issued in their favour, had no jurisdiction to hold such transfer as void, because the property was non- evacuee and, therefore, its treatment and transfer to the petitioners could not be made Even if the property had been erroneously treated and transferred as evacuee, their right in the property, stood extinguished and they had no legitimate title, which could be passed onto Abdul Rashid by way of gift, from whom, respondents Nos.2 and 3 could acquire a lawful title, by stepping into the shoes of the original owners It has been settled till now that, where the property had been treated and transferred as an evacuee property, even if erroneously, and the non-evacuee owners did not seek their remedy under the law in force at the relevant time, their title to such property stood extinguished and they could not assert their right of ownership before the Civil Court, after the repeal of the evacuee/settlement law, on account of lack of jurisdiction."
4. ' However, no challenge was thrown by the petitioner or Mst. Hafeezan Khanum either before the Custodian or before the Rehabilitation Department against the issuance of the allotment order of 1966 or issuance of RL-II to the respondent allottee. In such circumstances the petitioner cannot take up the plea that the allotment made in favour of the respondents is invalid for any reason.
5. Indeed, we are not convinced that the property was resumed because as mentioned above there is neither any order of resumption available on record, nor are the terms and conditions of auction postulating that auctioned land could be resumed for non-payment of one installment. Admittedly, only a small amount was payable by Pujara Ram etc; and without a clear legal basis, the presumption of cancellation of auction sale and resumption of auctioned land is a harsh measure that we cannot approve. Resultantly, we do not find this case to be fit for interference. Dismissed accordingly.